(1) The _Epistle_ is to be read through with constant reference to the _Gospel_. In what _precise form_ the former is related to the latter (whether as a preface or as an appendix, as a spiritual commentary or an encyclical) critics may decide. But there is a vital and constant connection. The two documents not only touch each other in thought, but _interpenetrate_ each other; and the Epistle is constantly _suggesting_ questions which the Gospel only can answer, _e.g._, 1 John i. 1, cf. John i. 1-14; 1 John v. 9, "witness of men," cf. John i. 15-36, 41, 45, 49, iii. 2, 27-36, iv. 29-42, vi. 68, 69, vii. 46, ix. 38, xi. 27, xviii. 38, xix. 5, 6, xx. 28.
(2) Such eloquence of _style_ as St. John possesses is _real_ rather than _verbal_. The interpreter must look not only at the words themselves, but at that which _precedes_ and _follows_; above all he must fix his attention not only upon the _verbal expression_ of the thought, but upon the _thought itself_. For the formal connecting link is not rarely omitted, and must be supplied by the devout and candid diligence of the reader. The "root below the stream" can only be traced by our bending over the water until it becomes translucent to us.
_E.g._ 1 John i. 7, 8. Ver. 7, "the root below the stream" is a question of this kind, which naturally arises from reading ver. 6--"must it be said that the sons of light need a constant cleansing by the blood of Jesus, which implies a constant guilt"? Some such thought is the latent root of connection. The answer is supplied by the following verse. ["It is so" for] "if we say that we have no sin," etc. Cf. also iii. 16, 17, xiv. 8, 9, 10, 11, v. 3 (ad. fin.), 4.